Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Choturam @ Chotelal – Petitioner
Versus
Parvati Devi and Others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 260 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revised petition challenges trial court order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. jurisdiction of civil court contested. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's decision on mixed questions of law. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. revision petition deemed devoid of merit. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 2 (for short, the defendant No. 2) against the order dt.1.11.2022 passed by the trial court in case No. 212/2022 whereby the application filed by the defendant No. 2 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs (for short, the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaring sale deed dt.1.10.1980 as null and void, ineffective and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Learned trial court vide its judgment dt.1.11.2022 has dismissed the defendant No. 2's application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 submits that a revenue suit has already been filed by the plaintiffs before the revenue court for declaring their khatedari right and unless and until the khatedari rights of the plaintiffs are declared by the revenue court, civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
4. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania reported in 2019(3) SCC 692.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has supported the impugned order.
6. Heard. Considered.
7. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaring sale deed dt. 1.10.1980 as null and void, ineffective and for permanent injunction. The trial court while discussing the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC observed that the objection raised by the defendant No. 2 was a mixed question of law and fact, which can be decided only after framing the issues and leading evidence by the parties.
8. Thus, the findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant No. 2. So, present revision petition is filed by the defendant No. 2 being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
The jurisdictional objections under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must be considered by the trial court when determining the validity of a sale deed and related injunctions.
Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as amendment of pleadings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the relevant facts to be looked into are the averments in the plaint, and the pleas ....
Where khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach Revenue Courts.
The court affirmed that the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 must solely consider the plaint's averments, and limitation is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence.
Jurisdiction to declare khatedari rights is exclusively with Revenue Courts; Civil Courts can only grant consequential reliefs after such determination.
At the stage of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are to be looked into, and the ground of limitation may be raised in the written stateme....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
